Tag Archives: unconstitutional

Terry Holcomb Sr. Goes to Jail for Defending Liberty For YOU!

Terry Holcomb Sr. Stands Up for Himself  (and other Constitutional Commentary)

Take a good listen to the details of this event. The actions of this judge are despicable. Here is KrisAnne Hall’s plea for you to listen to this broadcast and take action:

“What is Liberty worth to you? To Terry Holcomb, Sr. it is worth going to jail. Mr. Holcomb refused to allow his voice to be silenced by tyrannical government and that tyrannical government put him in jail. He stood his ground peacefully, while others watched on in submission to tyranny. Mr. Holcomb defended Liberty for YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. Will YOU stand with him NOW?”

Just three days ago, a judge in a Texas county decided to adjourn a meeting which was held for the purpose of hearing public redress of an issue to which there was public opposition.

The County didn’t want to hear any opposition. So what did the judge do? He adjourned the meeting before anyone had a chance to speak contrary to the intentions of the County……. and of course that was the designated reason for the meeting in the first place.

One man, Terry Honcomb, Sr.,  protested and demanded that he be allowed to speak. . Inspite of the fact that the meeting was already formally adjourned when Mr. Holcomb spoke up, he was arrested and jailed on a bogus charge because he had refused to be denied the opportunity to be heard.  Mr. Holcomb broke no law, and only stood up for his right to be hear and not to be run over by a judge’s abuse of authority.

 

—>  Listen to the audio commentary by KrisAnne Hall  here

 

Why there even is a Bill of Rights

Why would I take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the people against the unjust actions of a tyrannical government? Maybe it’s because the history of the activities of the Continental Congress in 1789 verifies that position. The Federalists actually argued against the creation of the Bill of Rights, but not because they disagreed with its proposed contents.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the Federalist point of view, argued against the creation of a Bill of Rights, and it was a hotly contested issue in the Constitutional debates.  His motivations for taking that position were also quite reasonable. Hamilton contended that as soon as you spell out a defined set of individual rights, those specific words would be used to rule in favor of the allowance or prohibition of anything that was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights  as prohibited or allowed.  Hamilton was quite perceptive.

The Bill of Rights WAS created, and now we can see exactly that happening today. Liberals.  in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, take exactly the same position that Hamilton feared would be taken.

For instance, in the modern  liberal view, you can outlaw certain kinds of weapons, because their allowance was not specifically spelled out when the Constitution was penned in 1789. After all, automatic rifles did not exist back then. Therefore, by their argument, we can outlaw them without ever infringing on the rights that existed in 1789.

Likewise, in the liberal view, we can define what comprises “the press” to exclude bloggers and Facebook particpants because the press was nothing more than newspapers back in 1789. The internet did not exist yet. Therefore, by their argument, bloggers and people who do not fit a government definition of “press” can be excluded from the freedom of press rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Those are only two examples and both pf them typify exactly the kind of Constitutional abuse that Hamilton warned against. On the other hand, although that’s why Hamilton didn’t favor adopting a Bill of Rights, where would we be without it to lean on today? Hamilton lost that argument, and the Bill of Rights DOES exist. So now, we have this resulting interpretation debate to deal with, just as Hamilton predicted would happen.

What is the only logical answer to this Constitutional interpretation debate?

In my mind, original intent is the only argument behind which anyone can stand with any sort of logical validity. Original intent is easy enough to understand on the basis of the history that transpired in the debates of the Continental Congress, resulting in the penning of the final documents. If we can establish what the Framers intended, that is, what the absolute meaning behind their words was, that must certainly take precedence over any sort of opinion about it. Rulings about whatever the Constitution DIDN’T ever say, can logically be nothing but baseless and personally biased opinions. Such opinions are easy to spot, because they without exception walk on someone’s inalienable rights.


The narrator, KrisAnne Hall, in the piece linked above well explains the debate in 1789 over whether or not there even should have been a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. If you really read and dig into history, you will learn that the party which believed that the purpose of the Constitution was to give the people power over potential tyrannical government, was the same party that WON the debate over the issue of whether or not there should even BE be an enumerated Bill of Rights. Because they won that argument, the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.

I have been told by liberal minded friends that I need to read the Constitution because I am supposedly misinterpreting it.

Well, I did. I carry a copy in my briefcase. I also read history, and I also considered the tyrannical actions of King George, who inspired the Colonists to revolt and to declare independence from his tyrannical government.

What I have not done, and which makes me incapable of Constitutional interpretation, according to one of my esteemed well meaning liberal friends, is to take a course from a liberal arts college law department which teaches students to interpret the Constitution in exactly the manner against which Alexander Hamilton warned it is not to be interpreted.

Be sure to listen to the audio and take action.

Facebooktwitterrss

4 Police Tricks to Nab You For Pot and How You Can Beat Them

federal funding to put marijuana users in prison

Cops have a massive incentive to bust people for pot. Here’s how to fight back.

According to the ACLU, marijuana arrests account for over half of all drug arrests—and 88% of those charges are for simple possession. Because of decades-old grant programs, local precincts are showered with money from the federal government if they keep their arrest numbers high. Police have a built-in financial incentive to focus their arrests on low-level drug offenders to fatten their statistics, especially because these are some of the easiest arrests to make. This is a major reason why marijuana arrest rates have gone up in recent years, and why they make up the majority of all drug detentions nationally.

If you’re a cannabis aficionado who chooses to indulge in the herb, you’re a walking dollar sign to the police. Your arrest can directly lead to more bullets, armor, assault rifles and other toys, and may even be used to justify higher wages. You’re more useful to them imprisoned or cited than free, and they will try their hardest to manipulate you into giving them a reason to take you in. They can even make false threats to trick you into waiving your rights.

What follows are the four most common ways police deceive people into incriminating themselves for marijuana possession. Heed these warnings and remember the advice so you can avoid giving the cops a reason to arrest you.

Although our laws are meant to protect everyone equally, some police treat people differently based on a number of factors, particularly race. The ACLU reported last summer that blacks are almost four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. Other activist groups have found that law enforcement officers kill one black American roughly every 28 hours. Should you choose to invoke any of the rights detailed below, you must do so while remaining hyperaware of how you are perceived by police based on your race and other class-indicative factors, and then proceed with caution. Unfortunately, that’s nothing new for people of color.

1. Giving officers “reasonable suspicion” by talking too much.A cop has no right to detain you without reasonable suspicion. “Reasonable suspicion” is a murky standard that isn’t as definitive as hard evidence, but requires more than a hunch, as Flex Your Rights explains:

A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.
If a cop simply stops and pummels you with questions, he has no right to force you to stick around and answer. In fact, if you’re carrying a bit of bud on you, your best bet for avoiding trouble is to use your constitutional right to silence. Here’s what I mean.

Let’s say you just bought an eighth of deliciously fresh green shimmering with sticky trichomes. You’re walking to a friend’s house for some communal smoking when suddenly a young police officer stops you to ask some questions—just the standard inquiries: Who are you, where are you going, where are you coming from, etc.

You think, “Shit! I’m screwed! But maybe if I’m really nice, he/she will let me go.”

You decide to blab away in an overly polite tone under the delusion that he/she isn’t aware of your charm offensive. You notice your tactic isn’t working, and out of nervousness you begin stammering and giving inconsistent answers—which are cause for reasonable suspicion. The cop then decides to search you, finding your weed and brandishing it in the open, which gives him/her the right to arrest you for having pot in “public view.” You’re cuffed, shunted off to jail and stuck with a petty possession charge.

To avoid such a sour experience, Flex Your Rights recommends that if an officer stops you, you should always ask from the very start, “Officer, are you detaining me or am I free to go?” If the officer says you can go, you can continue on your way. If he/she gives a vague answer or continues to ask questions, continue repeating the magic words until he/she relents.

“If the officer says something like, ‘You’re not being detained. I just want to talk to you,’ then you are free to end the conversation and leave immediately, [without] wait[ing] for the officer to kindly dismiss you,” says Steve Silverman, executive director of Flex Your Rights.

If an officer tells you that you are being detained, that means you’re under arrest, in which case you should definitely inform him/her that you are choosing to stay silent; perhaps you can say something like, “I’m going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer.” Because you can be damned sure that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Also, DO NOT run away or trash-talk the cop. These are always causes for reasonable suspicion. Do your best to stay cool.

2. Consenting to a body search.Often, the police won’t inform you of your right not to consent to a search. Sometimes people will consent to a search even when they’re holding weed, either because they don’t know they can say no or because they’re worried about the officer’s reaction.

“The most powerful trick police use to make marijuana arrests on the street is to ask citizens to empty their pockets. Of course, this ‘ask’ generally sounds like a command when police shout, ‘What’s in your pockets? What do you got?’ Silverman of Flex Your Rights says. He also says the vast majority of people stopped will comply with a search regardless of what they have on them out of intimidation or confusion.

“Unless police feel a hard item during a pat-down that could be a weapon, they are not legally allowed to reach into your pockets,” he added.

Your right to refuse a search is expressly noted in the Fourth Amendment, which guards against “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the state. As with refusing to answer a nosy officer’s questions, you are legally within your rights to say no to a physical search unless the officer has a warrant.

“If the police say they have a search warrant, ask to see it. If they don’t, say ‘I do not consent to this search,’” advises the New York City Civil Liberties Union website. An officer may still illegally search you even if you say no, but at least you’ll protect your rights if you have to go to court.

3. Consenting to a vehicle search.This one follows the same legal guidelines of refusing a body search: unless the officer has a warrant, you do not need to give him/her permission to search your car. Calmly inform him/her that you are aware of your rights and that he/she cannot search your vehicle.

However, an officer can still order you out of your car if he/she wishes to do so, and you should comply if they do. Once you are out of the vehicle, the officer may threaten you with false consequences if you continue to refuse a search.

“Beware that police can legally lie to you, so never let false threats or promises trick you into waving your rights,” says Judge William Murphy, a civil liberties advocate.

Once again, if the cop has no warrant or reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle, say the magic words: “Officer, are you detaining me or am I free to go?” Theoretically, he/she would then either give you a traffic citation and leave or just let you go on your way. However, experience has shown that officers sometimes become aggressive or even violent when a person denies a search. All you can really do in that situation is keep calm and continue to shield yourself from judicial damnation by asserting your lawfully guaranteed right to refuse a search.

4. Letting the police enter your home.Without a warrant, you never have to open your door for police. No matter how hard they bang or how many times they smash their pointer against your doorbell, you can leave them out in the cold. Just say no.

Someone should have told that to former UNC basketball player Will Graves before he willfully allowed police to enter his coach’s home last December, which the athlete was renting while he completed his studies. When the cops came snooping at his door on a tip from a meter reader at a utility company, Graves allowed the cops to enter (probably out of fear), and for his courteousness he was cited (fortunately not arrested) for being in possession of a couple of blunts, a grinder and a handful of pot seeds.

Regardless of how unnatural or frightening (exhilarating?) it feels, always say no to a cop who is trying to get into your home without a warrant. You wouldn’t let a stranger in, and that’s exactly what a cop is.

Caveat: One way cops can claim to have “reasonable suspicion” to search your body, car or home is to say they smell marijuana. This is a difficult assertion to guard against since it’s your word against theirs. More than a few people have gone down after a search because a cop claimed to catch a whiff of weed. The “smell” provision overwhelmingly favors the police in most drug cases.

Here’s what Flex Your Rights says about the matter:

“If police say they smell marijuana…[a]ll you can really do is say, ‘Officer, I have nothing to hide, but I don’t consent to any searches.’ If they search you anyway and something is found, you’ll need an attorney to help you fight the charges. Unfortunately, police sometimes use tricks like this to circumvent your constitutional rights and there’s no perfect way to handle the situation. Of course, they are most likely to do this if they are suspicious of you for some reason, so do your best to stay calm.”

Aaron Cantú is an investigator for the Marijuana Arrest Research Project and an independent journalist based in Brooklyn. Follow him on Twitter @aaronmiguel_
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/4-police-tricks-nab-pot-beat/#Du8GdjMU7GaG4Qiq.99

Facebooktwitterrss

Payback: Group Protests Government Spying By Tracking Obama At All Times

Many Americans are outraged over the privacy-invading programs run by US intelligence agencies. Such programs have collected thousands of communications from innocent, unknowing Americans.

Now, one group has decided to get payback on President Obama, who previously promised to run the “most transparent administration” in history.

They are doing this through a new project called “Where is Obama,” which gives the exact location of the president at all times.

Kim Asendorf, Ole Fach, Kyle McDonald and Jonas Lund are the project’s founders.

McDonald said the group sought to challenge government surveillance through the project, and were inspired by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. He said, “The same way the press made the leaks a story about tracking Snowden, we wanted to turn it into a story about tracking Obama. To show how ridiculous it is to pin stories like this down to a single person, and to give people the feeling that maybe we have the same power that the government does, if only we organize ourselves. With that power, how do we want to use it? Who do we want to track? Will we emulate the government, antagonize them, or reject their example completely?”

In order for the site to work properly, it needs a large base of users. Users give Obama’s location on Google maps. The group asserts that with this information from a significant number of people, “a probable position of President (can be) calculated using a complex algorithm.” If no one has reported his location, it is assumed that Obama is in the White House.

Screen shot 2013-08-31 at 4.33.01 AM

The site represents the American people’s anger over the federal government’s size and scope, specifically related to privacy.

The group said, “The position of the president is a state secret. The White House website shows only Barack Obama’s schedule from the current day, but never dates beyond. The accuracy of this information is controversial. Obama, on the other hand, knows your entire calendar.”

Perhaps most importantly, the project aims to move towards a more transparent government — as Obama initially campaigned on. “Every person in the world can now participate in the supervision of the President,” the group pointed out.

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!